RU was banking on a big GOP midterm win in the USA as their last hope, this pointless bloodbath needs to end
Honestly I think if Putin pulled out he'd be fine -- most of the opposition is dead, running scared, or on his team. A lot of Russian assets have been frozen, though, and if he wants to get those back he'd have to walk away from his 2014 gains, or else justify why all of that $$$ is gone.
Win it, ideally.
> Ukraine's position is more righteous here.
No shit.
As long as we keep sending bullets and shells and missiles and training new soldiers, Ukrainians seem willing to defend their sovereign rights. Anyone saying Ukraine should give up, in any way, is doing the kremlin's job, whether they realize it or not. Putin is the only one who benefits
> pointless bloodbath needs to end
Yes, it does, right after Ukraine's territory is restored and the 1M or so people that have been relocated to Russia are returned home.
One of the lessons of WWI was heavy-handed reparations create more even larger problems. It took WWII to clean it up the mess, and while the de facto military dictatorship that emerged under the Kaiser was was bad, the Nazi replacement was far, far, far worse.
What is important is that whatever end this comes to puts an end to wars of territorial conquest like this. They make little sense in the modern world, and are an absurd waste of life and wealth. After the war, Ukraine will become a NATO country, and the west will invest heavily in rebuilding and GDP will grow. So long as the people of Russia tolerate totalitarian rule, they will live with stagnant growth and dim future. If the people of Russia can once again open up, maybe that future will be different.
More meat into the grinder.
How do we know there wasn't a big GOP win?
The election outcome of several Senate seats is still unknown at this moment, and at least one is going to a run-off, so I doubt this was central to their decision making.
Despite Russia's now openly admitted US election interference, I don't think they have more foresight into actual election outcomes than the US itself does.
I'm not discounting your logic, though. Clearly the GOP has expressed intent to reduce US support for Ukraine. It's just too early to apply the logic to the situation on the ground.
I guess it depends on how you define "big". A supermajority in the Senate was never in the cards. A majority, however slim, would still be (per my own definition) a big win for the GOP.
> They'd need unity on fucking Ukraine over; it seems unlikely all ~51 would be on board here given the popularity of the Ukranians in the war in the US.
I think this is partially because Americans haven't felt the brunt of increased energy prices caused by the war to the degree that Europeans and others have.
If/when that impact hits, the fact that half the country listens to media personalities that are openly supportive of the Russian side and are happy to suggest that appeasing Russia would bring down energy prices, suggests to me that public opinion could change pretty quickly.
And I'll give the GOP credit for one thing: they have listened to what their base voters actually wanted (regardless of the morality of it) and they changed their tune.
I'd love to be wrong, but doubt many people are willing to put the Ukrainians rights to peoplehood over the price of gas at the pump.
> I think this is partially because Americans haven't felt the brunt of increased energy prices caused by the war to the degree that Europeans and others have.
European polling remains very strongly pro-Ukraine, despite already massive hits to energy costs. 62-14 in the UK (https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/public-continues-support-britain...), 70-21 in Germany (https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/ger...). Those costs are easing now, as well, as Europe has successfully filled up significant reserves and had a very mild November.
I agree, but Europeans are willing to stand their ground despite high energy prices because an uncountered Russia is literally an existential issue for them. They will keep their thermostats at 18C this winter if that's what it takes, just like Americans sacrificed at home during WW2 after the war came to our territory.
But that's not the case in the US today. Biden knows this, which is why he went hat-in-hand to the Saudis asking them to increase oil production (only to get double-crossed shorty thereafter).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/US_oil_p...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/US_Natur...
They've been prepping defenses on the left bank for most of a month.
Any of the debates have been on the _method_ and _extent_ of support, not _whether or not to support_. Both red and blue have had objections to types of aide being sent for legit national security concerns (for instance, classified fire control systems on 155mm artillery).
It's not just a smear, there's actual history behind the moniker (https://www.salon.com/2021/10/21/rachel-maddow-explains-orig...)
For sure. More revealing is what's said internally about their own.
"There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump." - Kevin McCarthy
McConnell's no MAGA, but he's not really in full control of the Party any longer.
Can they afford fresh forces? Can they afford to replace the hardware they've already lost?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
> The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance, prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.
There's no reason to believe any new one would be better respected by Russia; it'd be just an opportunity for Russia to rest, rearm, and invest in propaganda efforts.